which to cut F-35B or F-35C

[Ananda]

The only thing the C brings to the table is a longer still air range. Which in the world of IFR and STOVL carrier operation is really not that much of a gain.

How about bigger payload of the C's ?

I think argument of C against B already being discussed in several defense forum in internet or by several 'analyst' which in my opinion both sided of argument for C and B have merit. The arguments whether one of the 'naval' type of C or B has to be cut arise from some analysts that believe the costs of development 3 types of F-35 is not going to be maintainable under present conditions, thus the Navy and Marines has to decided whether they want to get C or B but not both of them.

I my self believe if that situations happen, then the bigger political clout of USN will win against the need of USMC. The same argument that made USN will choose Conventional CVN against STOVL Carrier. Remembered for USN, Tarawa's is basically LPH and only have secondary role as STOVL Carriers for USMC. It's regardless that Tarawa's right now are more in role as STOVL carriers rather than simply LPH.

Base on several reading, I believe for USN still see STOVL as primary supporting amphibious capability and not Naval Theater operations as their Carrier based fighters do. Thus regardless what the argument of supporting B (which again I say have merit), if in some situations they have to come to a choosing, C will be the one they're going to hold for simply that in USN mind they need conventional carrier based F-35C to make their CBG effective against what will potentially come out from China and Russia.

 

[riksavage]

Actually your argument isn’t supported by logic or numbers.

First of all this is a stupid question with no bearing on reality but for the sake of argument which F-35 model (B or C) should be cancelled if you had to? The answer is clearly the F-35C. Because the B can do anything the C can but the C can’t do what the B can.

Could the USN and RN (the only C customers) fly the B model of their carriers? Sure, no problems. It would actually be easier for them as they wouldn’t need costly catapults and arrestor gear. Can the C model fly from an LHD or CVS? Nope. Can the C model operate from a short rapidly prepared airfield supporting an expeditionary force? Nope.

As to the numbers argument the C has no clear advantage over the B. There are 402 F-35Bs planned for acquisition by the USMC and IAF/IN (Italy). There are only 478 F-35Cs planned of which the RAF/RN (UK) figure of 138 will almost certainly be reduced to around 48-72 and 80 are for the USMC who actually wanted F-35Bs. So the real number of Bs vs Cs is around 480 vs 320. And that is without additional F-35B orders from Spain to replace their AV-8s. Plus potential F-35B orders from Korea and Japan who are seriously investigating this kind of capability.

The only thing the C brings to the table is a longer still air range. Which in the world of IFR and STOVL carrier operation is really not that much of a gain.

This is very much a hypothetical argument, however you have failed to take politics into account. The USN's lobbying clout is far greater than that of the USMC and if a push came to a shove there is absolutely no way the USN would accept STOVL aircraft as the future primary CAS/CAP air asset (once the SH's reach their sell by date) deployed from their super carriers, you are basically arguing for the USN to take a step back in carrier aviation.

And if the F35B is such an indispensable asset then why haven't the USN pushed for a mixed fleet of F35B & C aboard their supercarriers, or better still argued for a range of smaller, lighter and cheaper F35B strike carriers (no USMC elements or dock equipped) to offset the planned decrease in supercarrier battle groups? The pressure is on to reduce costs:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7888931&c=AME&s=SEA

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This is very much a hypothetical argument, however you have failed to take politics into account. The USN's lobbying clout is far greater than that of the USMC and if a push came to a shove there is absolutely no way the USN would accept STOVL aircraft as the future primary CAS/CAP air asset (once the SH's reach their sell by date) deployed from their super carriers, you are basically arguing for the USN to take a step back in carrier aviation.

Do you really think the USN has more lobbying clout than the USMC? It’s a bigger service but no one punches at the level of the USMC in Congress or the American public. The F-35B, V-22 and EFV up to the point of each vehicle costing $20m are examples of this.

Further you assume the F-35B is a step backwards and that the USN would never accept it. The F-35B is a step forward over the Super Hornet or classic Hornet, not even the anti JSF crazies would disagree with that. The USN almost acquired the AV-8 in the 1970s and would take F-35Bs if it was that or nothing. Or they would just let the F-35 slide and acquire more Super Hornets. Naval aviation is very pragmatic when it comes to acquiring aircraft. The high loss rates via carrier operations up to the 70s instilled a ‘good enough’ over ‘perfect’ approach. As long as they have new deliveries they are willing to accept less than the best potential capability.

And if the F35B is such an indispensable asset then why haven't the USN pushed for a mixed fleet of F35B & C aboard their supercarriers, or better still argued for a range of smaller, lighter and cheaper F35B strike carriers (no USMC elements or dock equipped) to offset the planned decrease in supercarrier battle groups?

Because they already have supercarriers and an entire fleet system set up over conventional carrier operations. While there are many capability arguments made from time to time (by the USN and only recently) for acquiring smaller carriers it will never happen because realistically it would spell the end of supercarrier acquisition. USN leadership is just not willing to take that risk because there are a range of things you can do with an 80,000 tonne carrier that you just can’t do with a 20,000-60,000 tonne one. And of course neither the F-35C or F-35B are BEING cancelled. Mixing their fleet is just ridiculous. We are talking about a hypothetical where it’s one or the other.

Obviously the F-35C suits the USN more than any other aircraft. That’s why they are buying it. But if they had to make do with the F-35B they could. The same can’t be said for the USMC with the F-35A or C.

And BTW the push has ALWAYS been on in the F-35 program to save costs.

 

[riksavage]

Do you really think the USN has more lobbying clout than the USMC? It’s a bigger service but no one punches at the level of the USMC in Congress or the American public. The F-35B, V-22 and EFV up to the point of each vehicle costing $20m are examples of this.

Further you assume the F-35B is a step backwards and that the USN would never accept it. The F-35B is a step forward over the Super Hornet or classic Hornet, not even the anti JSF crazies would disagree with that. The USN almost acquired the AV-8 in the 1970s and would take F-35Bs if it was that or nothing. Or they would just let the F-35 slide and acquire more Super Hornets. Naval aviation is very pragmatic when it comes to acquiring aircraft. The high loss rates via carrier operations up to the 70s instilled a ‘good enough’ over ‘perfect’ approach. As long as they have new deliveries they are willing to accept less than the best potential capability.



Because they already have supercarriers and an entire fleet system set up over conventional carrier operations. While there are many capability arguments made from time to time (by the USN and only recently) for acquiring smaller carriers it will never happen because realistically it would spell the end of supercarrier acquisition. USN leadership is just not willing to take that risk because there are a range of things you can do with an 80,000 tonne carrier that you just can’t do with a 20,000-60,000 tonne one. And of course neither the F-35C or F-35B are BEING cancelled. Mixing their fleet is just ridiculous. We are talking about a hypothetical where it’s one or the other.

Obviously the F-35C suits the USN more than any other aircraft. That’s why they are buying it. But if they had to make do with the F-35B they could. The same can’t be said for the USMC with the F-35A or C.

And BTW the push has ALWAYS been on in the F-35 program to save costs.

Remember the title for this thread is which to cut the F35B or F35C? I'm just offering my opinion that in a worst case scenario and one had to go, it would be the B, not C varient. The potential loss of the supercarrier fleet as a result of going for the B platform over C would be unacceptable to the American public and Congress, regardless of the country's love of the USMC. At the end of the day the USN can still provide top cover for the USMC and there's nothing stopping marine pilots flying C's of carriers.

And I strongly question your comment about the USMC's clout over the USN, for years they were the victim of hand-me-downs and suffered from a lack of comparable kit when compared to Army and Navy.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And strongly question your comment about the USMC's clout over the USN, for years they were the victim of hand-me-downs and suffered from a lack of comparable kit when compared to their Army and Navy counterparts. They have always come forth in the pecking order when it comes to budgets.

Actually, USMC are regarded as the lead service and agency for force development in a number of areas - especially expeditionary which is where the US DoD is heading.

The USMC and USAF have been very very robust in supporting the need for the jumper. This is not a service centric issue, its a capability issue and the USMC have been more than willing in the last 3 weeks to spell it out (and at the 3 and 4 star level)

 

[riksavage]

Actually, USMC are regarded as the lead service and agency for force development in a number of areas - especially expeditionary which is where the US DoD is heading.

The USMC and USAF have been very very robust in supporting the need for the jumper. This is not a service centric issue, its a capability issue and the USMC have been more than willing in the last 3 weeks to spell it out (and at the 3 and 4 star level)

Maybe so, but that's not the point of this thread, the argument being if one had to go, which one would it be?

The ongoing studies into future expeditionary warfare/innovation conducted by USMC and argued at the highest levels is extremely relevant considering global uncertainties, but I still don't see them winning over Congress, public opinion and the USN to opt for B over C if it came to the crunch? The only way that would happen is if the US suffered an economic collapse of such magnitude that they would be forced to ditch plans for the future generation of supercarriers and instead opt for smaller (QE/CdG) sized replacements fitted with ski-ramps.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Remember the title for this thread is which to cut the F35B or F35C? I'm just offering my opinion that in a worst case scenario and one had to go, it would be the B, not C varient.

Yeah and I’m offering the different opinion and we are arguing the reasons why. Thought that was obvious?

The potential loss of the supercarrier fleet as a result of going for the B platform over C would be unacceptable to the American public and Congress, regardless of the country's love of the USMC. At the end of the day the USN can still provide top cover for the USMC and there's nothing stopping marine pilots flying C's of carriers.

The USN would not lose the supercarrier fleet if it had to acquire 280 F-35Bs in place of F-35Cs. All those Hornets, Hawkeyes, new UAV, etc aren’t going to disappear and they aren’t suddenly going to decommission there entire fleet or change their build strategy. They would probably insist on a catapult gear for their F-35Bs and bang them off the front carriers in conventional flight mode!

And I strongly question your comment about the USMC's clout over the USN, for years they were the victim of hand-me-downs and suffered from a lack of comparable kit when compared to Army and Navy.

Umm, I think you need to update your reference library. Hand-me-down-corps was a problem in the 1950s and 60s. Since VietNam they have had more control over their procurement and haven’t taken a single second hand item from Navy or Army. Ohh except one: In the 1990s they acquired a whole swag of M240 machineguns from surplus Army M1 tanks and converted them to GPMG standard so they could retire the M60.

The idea of the impoverished marine corps is about as relevant today as posting marines on the gunwale in port to stop sailors slipping overboard and deserting.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Maybe so, but that's not the point of this thread, the argument being if one had to go, which one would it be?

well, personally, I find these types of threads inane as they suspend reality to make a case. There needs to be an injection of reality into hypotheticals otherwise they are just meandering intellectual fashion shows....

The ongoing studies into future expeditionary warfare/innovation conducted by USMC and argued at the highest levels is extremely relevant considering global uncertainties, but I still don't see them winning over Congress, public opinion and the USN to opt for B over C if it came to the crunch?

You can't be serious. The reverance for the USMC stems all the way back to struggles for independance, they are a senior service and have some significant symbolism and emotion as well as cachet for those in Congress etc.... They are the only service that are able to point to procurement exercises with a disproportionate series of wins, so by association they are seen as wise handlers of the public purse. especially their rapid acquisition models. ie if they want something they aren't see as burning money like the other services have (and its not the services complete fault either)

The only way that would happen is if the US suffered an economic collapse of such magnitude that they would be forced to ditch plans for the future generation of supercarriers and instead opt for smaller (QE/CdG) sized replacements fitted with ski-ramps.

and you'd have to see the US cut her fleet by more than a quarter. ie cut not defer. in the real world they're talking about deferral, not abandoning and there are still external approaches for countries who are weighing up whether then can take slots on any platforms that are deferred by the 8.3 group

again, IMO hypotheticals that abandon reality completely are an exercise in expeditionary intellectualism.

if you do that you might as well write a Tom Clancy novel and stick it in the reference section of the local library.

 

[Pingu]

I think to argue the benefits of the B-model's ability to fly from 'austere' runways is pointless. Could you honestly imagine an aircraft with the complexity and cost of the F-35 being operated from a semi-prepared base? It would require huge support infrastructure which could only be provided from a Carrier or proper base, therefore rendering the 'austere basing' ability useless.

The argument of course is its ability to operate from amphibs and smaller carriers. If the B-model was cancelled, operators of these vessels would lose a lot of fixed wing capability. This is even more an issue for nations like Spain and Italy because without the B-model, they have no alternative whereas the US (as a nation) can still rely rely on naval support from the C-model. Although the UK has chosen the C-model, it is still arguable as to whether it will be capable establishing and operating a CTOL carrier and so the B-model may still be an essential choice.

Part of me thinks that the USMC's ACE should be more focused on a strictly CAS role and I find it hard to understand why there is such a large amount of capability overlap with the USN. For this reason, I think that the B-model should be deleted and replaced with something like the Super Tucano. Now I am not much for the USAF's decision to pursue this route as the theory of it being more cost effective to operate than fast-jets is destroyed by the cost of adding an additional aircraft to the inventory. However, for the USMC, it would be filling a gap left by the F-35B. Now you may say that it is a significant capability reduction but the gap that needs filling is CAS and the Super Tucano does pure CAS just fine and could easily operate from small carriers and 'austere' bases. The extra capability of the F-35B is not required for this role.

If more capable fighters would be required to support USMC operations, the Navy would almost certainly be operating with them and therefore can provide such a capability through the C-model.

As for Super Hornets, I am not keen on the USN's decision to procure such large quantities of Super Hornets in place of F-35Cs. Will the USN end up with a force balanced more towards a lesser capable aircraft? I wonder how many F-35Cs the Navy will end up and how many Super Hornets.

If I were to be just considering the US's interest, I would say cut the B-model as the gap can be filled. If I were to be considering international interest and one has to be cut, I would say cut the C-model. The point made by Abraham Gubler that B-models could be operated by CVNs is a reasonable point.

However, I would then argue whether it be worth the USN having a pure Super Hornet fleet rather than the F-35B or even advanced versions of the Super Hornet that are being proposed. The deep-strike ability is something that can be filled by the UCAV-N and so I have often wondered the need for both the F-35C and UCAV-N.

 

[Ananda]

The USN would not lose the supercarrier fleet if it had to acquire 280 F-35Bs in place of F-35Cs. All those Hornets, Hawkeyes, new UAV, etc aren’t going to disappear and they aren’t suddenly going to decommission there entire fleet or change their build strategy. They would probably insist on a catapult gear for their F-35Bs and bang them off the front carriers in conventional flight mode!

If USN have to take F-35 B, and put Shornet for the job that F-35C's supposed to handle. Why can then some of F-35C proponent in the USN also argue that the Marines supposed to take 'say' Harrier NG instead of F-35B. It'll means new development for Harrier, but I believe in the USN eyes it's better than 'canned' F-35C.

Again if the condition come to a choosing for F-35C or F-35B, the one with bigger clout will win. USMC has big supporter in US congress, but USN simply has Bigger support in the Congress.

Can any of you gent's give an example when USMC win their argument against USN when it come to USN sacred ground that's Carrier based Fighters need ? It's not a secret that USMC found that the need for them to maintain large fleet of Hornet as secondary carrier wing, as a burden, compared to what they (USMC) feel their own priority need in the fighter (STVOL). They want more Harrier, but has to share their budget for Hornet as well (which is more USN need then USMC). Granted USMC can find the need for Hornet, but again it's not secret that USMC Hornet is more to support USN than what USMC primary need. This already show who has bigger clout.

 

[swerve]

...Although the UK has chosen the C-model, it is still arguable as to whether it will be capable establishing and operating a CTOL carrier and so the B-model may still be an essential choice....

Arguable? What's to argue? Since the MoD chose to adopt EMALS rather than taking a bet on EMCAT, there's no doubt about the practicality of the cat & trap system to be used. Aircraft handling facilities on the ships are being revised, operating manuals are being written, etc. We have full access to both USN & MN manuals, equipment, & training, & RN personnel have already been seconded to the USN & MN to gain experience in CTOL carrier operations.

The RN will be better prepared to start CTOL carrier operations than any navy has ever been before. And remember, this is the navy that invented angled decks, steam catapults & mirror landing sights, which made modern jet carrier operations practical. The inventor of the last died 6 months ago.

 

[lucinator]

I think to argue the benefits of the B-model's ability to fly from 'austere' runways is pointless. Could you honestly imagine an aircraft with the complexity and cost of the F-35 being operated from a semi-prepared base? It would require huge support infrastructure which could only be provided from a Carrier or proper base, therefore rendering the 'austere basing' ability useless.

Part of me thinks that the USMC's ACE should be more focused on a strictly CAS role and I find it hard to understand why there is such a large amount of capability overlap with the USN. For this reason, I think that the B-model should be deleted and replaced with something like the Super Tucano. Now I am not much for the USAF's decision to pursue this route as the theory of it being more cost effective to operate than fast-jets is destroyed by the cost of adding an additional aircraft to the inventory. However, for the USMC, it would be filling a gap left by the F-35B. Now you may say that it is a significant capability reduction but the gap that needs filling is CAS and the Super Tucano does pure CAS just fine and could easily operate from small carriers and 'austere' bases. The extra capability of the F-35B is not required for this role.

several things, one the USMC would operate the F-35 on partially damaged runways. ( its easier to fix a short stretch of it or even a pad than to grade the whole thing)

second the Super Tucano cannot operate off of a amphibious assault ship like the America Class.

 

[Pingu]

several things, one the USMC would operate the F-35 on partially damaged runways. ( its easier to fix a short stretch of it or even a pad than to grade the whole thing)

second the Super Tucano cannot operate off of a amphibious assault ship like the America Class.

I imagine that it would be able to. Think back to WW2 carriers. Arrestor wires would be needed but not catapults as the Super Tucano has proven STOL ability.

I will agree with you however that there are situations where the STOVL ability will help. I was just disregarding a really rough runway or road or something of that sort. The only realistic example I can think of is in Afganistan, where Harriers were able to operate at Kandahar before it was improved to a level to operate other types. I just wonder whether all of the support requirements for the F-35B would ever be available in such a way.

Also, the Super Tucano has an even better ability to operate from a basic airbase as it is far far simpler to maintain and support. Granted, no vertical landing ability but it has proven to operate from rough landing strip.

 

[Pingu]

Arguable? What's to argue? Since the MoD chose to adopt EMALS rather than taking a bet on EMCAT, there's no doubt about the practicality of the cat & trap system to be used. Aircraft handling facilities on the ships are being revised, operating manuals are being written, etc. We have full access to both USN & MN manuals, equipment, & training, & RN personnel have already been seconded to the USN & MN to gain experience in CTOL carrier operations.

The RN will be better prepared to start CTOL carrier operations than any navy has ever been before. And remember, this is the navy that invented angled decks, steam catapults & mirror landing sights, which made modern jet carrier operations practical. The inventor of the last died 6 months ago.

I didn't realise such measures and progress had been made. That's actually quite good to hear. That just proved how synical I have become about the UK MoD. I was still under the understanding all of the above that you have mentioned had not yet been thought through or planned etc.

In which case, disregard what i mentioned about the UK Carriers.

 

[riksavage]

I imagine that it would be able to. Think back to WW2 carriers. Arrestor wires would be needed but not catapults as the Super Tucano has proven STOL ability.

I will agree with you however that there are situations where the STOVL ability will help. I was just disregarding a really rough runway or road or something of that sort. The only realistic example I can think of is in Afganistan, where Harriers were able to operate at Kandahar before it was improved to a level to operate other types. I just wonder whether all of the support requirements for the F-35B would ever be available in such a way.

Also, the Super Tucano has an even better ability to operate from a basic airbase as it is far far simpler to maintain and support. Granted, no vertical landing ability but it has proven to operate from rough landing strip.

The way UCAV technology is evolving why bother with Super Tucano. As soon as you add a pilot in the loop you have to build-in and plan for CSAR, which impacts mission planning, resources and tollerable level of risk to crew factors. UCAV's will soon be able to carry the same payload as a ST into high risk environments without the need to have a USAF combat medic + crew waiting by a helo in the event your ST gets shot down. There are already studies being undertaken into a common control station, which can fly/operate more than one type of UAV/UCAV. The USMC could in theory operate rotary and fixed wing UAV platforms from the same dedicated C&C centre aboard a Wasp Class or deployable ground station.

I can see a role for ST in counter narcotics and CAS (for nations with small budgets), but not for the USMC/USN which is investing in a wide range of next generation UAV's.

 

[the road runner]

Defence today has a great article on the JSF and Budget cuts that the plane may face.

F-35 fighter program might face cuts | Air Force News at DefenseTalk

After reading the article it seems to me, that the JSF budget will only be cut if ,if the B model cannot preform.Time will tell i guess..

The last line of the article quotes JSF as costing $113 million in fiscal year 2011 dollars.Is that right?

Regards

 

[Lindermyer]

Am I alone in thinking that if an F35 variant is for the chop, then the best choice is the 'A'.
The Navy need the C
The USMC (and small carrier operators) need the B
The US Airforce could use the C (which was I believe a UK aspiration B replaced harrier and C replaced Tornado).
I am aware that the C is perhaps comprimised when considered against the A model, but is this really significant.
The USAF could always remove a few carrier required bits to save weight and ease maintenance.
This would In my opinion save a fortune by reducing the type to 2 distinct variants, (airforce models just having kit removed/not fitted) also life cycle wise the aircraft fleet could be pooled thus spreading Carrier life over many more airframes.

Just my 2 pennith worth

 

[the road runner]

Am I alone in thinking that if an F35 variant is for the chop, then the best choice is the 'A'.

Why would you cut the aircraft that is performing? The A model of the JSF will "probably"have the biggest production run of all JSF Versions. Economy of scale.

How do you think Australia and other partner nations would look at their version of the JSF being "Chopped"? I honestly think that if the A model was cut there would be a number of Partner Nations huffing and puffing and or leaving the program.

 

[colay]

The A is also the cheapest so it will cost more to scrap it and replace it with the more expensive C.




}

 

[MarcH]

Don't think so. They would just suck it up and order the C-model. Even more economies of scale ! Longer range ! And the only western LO aircraft on the market anyway. :